IIRC the Examiner.com was exposed long ago. I'm not sure they lean right or left really, just that they are there to make money and farm out all their work. There's no fact checking and many articles are plagiarized. On top of that many writers claim the site failed to pay them correctly.

I wouldn't trust any info coming from them.

Also, the 95% figure has been widely repudiated--that the 95% comes from 95% of *TRACEABLE* guns, whereas Mexico seizes about 30,000 guns a year.

So, 95% of the 10,000 or so traceable guns out of 30,000 or so guns recovered a year equals more like 33%. I have no problem with valid data--but I do hate it when people dick around with number games--as they did here for the 95% figure.

10,347 guns from U.S. sources for those two years (07 and 08) is still a hell of alot of guns going to Mexican drug cartels...mostly through "straw buyers" at gun shows (primarily in Texas).

I suppose that is a lot of guns. However, I'm uncomfortable with the American government further imposing process restrictions on to my rights to deal with the Mexican government's inability to deal with Mexican border and drug issues.

Anyway, that is off topic.

What type of solution would you propose to prevent the type of tragedies that occurred in VA Tech and Tuscon?

I've never cared for fact check, but since we have conflicting sources and info, just go with what you feel.


and I could pull half a dozen polls saying the opposite.


no they shouldn't. why the fuck should I have special permission to sell something I own in public? Aren't I part of the public?


and the courts are always right, right? kelo, united citizens, just to name a few. come on, the courts are fucked and you know it. It's half of the two faced tyrant organizations in our government that have ignored the constitution for over 100 years.

I agree the Mexican issue is a sidebar issue.

Back to the loophole...if dealers A, B, C, D and E at a gun show are required by federal law to conduct background checks...why not dealer F (who claims to be a private collector, but may very well be a shady dealer with intent to skirt the law)? Or at the very least a background check on dealer F.

There is no easy solution, but I think this is one small piece that has public support.

Improving the NICS would also help, but I dont have specifics.

Given that the courts have upheld that the government can restrict sales to certain categories of citizens/residents (criminals, illegal immigrants, mentally ill), it is most difficult when addressing the issue of the mentally ill...requiring a balance of their Constitutional right to privacy.

you ever been to a gun show? I used to work a few, never have I seen (dealer F) a private person trying to sell more than two guns. The shows I've worked don't allow private persons to have tables or booths. Private persons selling weapons generally have to walk up and down with flags on their weapons indicating they are for sale.

I went to a gun show in Virginia once.

Most of the dealers had professional booths/displays, but a few were simply card tables with hand-made signs and much smaller displays...and what appeared to be much more private talk between seller and buyer. Were these private collectors? I have no idea since I had no interest in purchasing a gun.

the smaller card table setups are indeed FFLs, just very small time. That's the type of table I used to work. we always had to do background checks.

You're familiar with zoning? Car registration?

zoning used to be a decent practice, til it got all political. Now, zoning is usually used to prevent undesirables from creating business' or homes in an area that doesn't want it. Car registration is not a permission slip to buy or sell a car.

This seems like a legitimate question. Clearly background checks aren't unconstitutional, so what's the harm in requiring them for all sales?

We register vehicles and license drivers. Depending on your state, a driver's license is commonly required to own a car.

Why wouldn't we treat guns the same? Well regulated militia and all.

Zoning has it's problems; but the absence of zoning would be worse.

Issues of the government knocking on your door and saying, "Yea, we decided after the fact that we don't want you to have that gun. So turn it over now, or else."

And it has been done before in both Louisiana and New York.

I don't think I'd ever see the day the Government kicks in my door to take away my Ford Mustang....

background checks by a business is interstate commerce......maybe. private citizens selling private property is not interstate commerce.

The USC doesn't grant you the right to own and drive a car either.

Oh Also to add on:

Form 4473s already are a form of defacto registration. The gun, gun's serial, your name, address, telephone and all that are already linked to the gun. Everytime you purchase a gun, you have to fill out a 4473. (IIRC this was the doing of Brady, right?)

we need people to dump this line of brainwashing. The constitution doesn't GRANT anyone any rights at all. The constitution ONLY gives government certain powers to do ONE SINGLE THING, and that is to protect the rights of the people.

That's something I've never heard before.

I do remember that the NRA lobbied heavily against the Brady Act and then sued after it passed, stating that it violated the 10th Amendment. They wanted the whole statute to be ruled unconstitutional, but the SCOTUS only ruled that the provision which compelled state and local background checks was unconstitutional. The rest was upheld as constitutional, but I don't know whether or not the commerce clause was mentioned. I'll have to go back and read Printz v. US.

printz v. US was held to violate the 10th Amendment when applied to forcing states to conduct the background checks. the background checks themselves are now done via the FFL directly, hence the commerce clause applies.

You're saying the USC doesn't grant you the right to bear arms?

I believe DK's trying to say that the right to bear arms exists even without the Constitution, and the Second Amendment precludes the government from taking that away, versus the opposing view which is that the government "gives" us the right to keep and bear arms.

Kirstang is correct. US v. Cruikshank opinion states that the second amendment is not granted by the constitution, nor is it dependent upon it. It pre-exists the constitution.

I don't understand your position. What is the difference between a person selling a privately-owned firearm out of their home and a person selling a privately-owned firearm in a public forum? What would be achieved by allowing one but not the other?

On a side note: selling a firearm out of ones home seems like it could present significant safety concerns for both the seller and the buyer.

---------- Post added at 10:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:03 PM ----------

Requiring non-FFL holders (regular guys like you and me) to conduct background checks seems like it could present a legal nightmare. As a seller, how do I verify that the information that the buyer is giving me is correct? Am I liable if the buyer presents fake ID? Would the seller be required to keep a sales receipt containing all of the buyers personal information like on the ATF Form 4473? I don't think I would be comfortable with any of those things as a buyer or a seller.

How do the FFL holders verify information?

I have no idea. It was an honest question.

If FFL holders have to do a lot of work on their own, I think there should be something done about that. The process of background checks should simply be to send the information in and get a yes or no back with a brief reason why in a day or two. I don't see why that should be any different for home sellers or anyone like that.

If the buyer gives false information, make that a crime with a serious enough punishment to require an arrest.

You can't sell whatever private property you feel like.

Also, what scenario does a law-abiding citizen require a 33 bullet magazine?

This is interesting to me. What private property should I not be allowed to sell?

I'm not making a value judgment on whether this fact should/shouldn't be true.

But it is a fact.

For example, I can't grow a Marijuana plant and then sell the buds. The plant would qualify as my private property, yet selling it is illegal.

Can I sell my car to a 10 year old?

Show me conclusive proof that stricter gun laws and magazine capacity restrictions will result in lower crime rates.

Well, we are sort of mixing qualifiers now. You can't sell marijuana because you can't OWN marijuana(in most states). It is an illegal substance. That is the distinction. And, while the buyer of property may be regulated (although, I'll bet a 10 year old could buy a car with cash), you can still sell the property - just not to the 10 year old (maybe).

The only private property that I can think of which you are legally allowed to own but can not legally sell are controlled substances. So, I guess I am trying to fit into context your statement that "you can't sell whatever private property you feel like" in regards to firearms. I'm just trying to understand what you are getting at.

After speaking with a few attorney friends I understand your point better. Not sure about the US v. Cruikshank reference seems every attorney I spoke with thought it a poor example to quote regarding the issue. Why? I really don't understand. Didn't go to law school, not going to debate such issues. I do think the first 10 amendments (The Bill of Rights) protect rights such as the right to bear arms.

As for size of magazines... why does it matter? If you can own a nine round clip and own as many hand guns as you want you can shoot all day as fast as you want. What are gun control people going to want next? A limit to the number of weapons a private party may own?

It was aimed at our strict Constructionist friends who feel it is unconstitutional to prohibit the sale of private property in any way

---------- Post added at 02:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:33 PM ----------

Technically speaking, you'd have to carry 4 individual pistols with 9 round magazines to equal 1 pistol with a 33 round magazine, plus you'd have to drop one pistol and pull out the next in order to do the same amount of damage. While you could still do it, it would be far less efficient

That's not how this is going to work. This thread is about specific steps. Show me statistics that confirm confirm a causal link between gun laws against longer clips and an increase in crime. I'm not interested in dealing with vague, statistically meaningless data on gun crime anymore, as it serves no purpose but to kill debate and discussion.

The question was posed in response to the question of
Asking for statistical proof is similar to playing "show me a scenario..."

Not to drag this thread further off topic, but yes. A 10 year old can purchase a car. He just can't drive it on public roads, though in some places he would be able to drive on private property.

----
Just some random thoughts on the subject:

I would probably qualify as something of a gun nut with many libertarian leanings. I do not like the idea of any impositions on the 2nd Amendment. Still, I recognize that we are living in a less-than-ideal world and so I am open to the idea of legislation that would impose practical caveats on gun ownership without infringing on the right to own weapons or imposing arbitrary standards.

I recognize the importance of ensuring that a person attempting to buy a firearm is legally qualified to do so. Because of this, I think it would be reasonable to require background checks for the transfer of firearms, but only so long as it did not impose an undue burden on the private buyer and seller. Perhaps local government's could establish an office that would communicate with the ATF database to provide instant background checks at no cost to the buyer and seller. It seems like a reasonable way to responsibly transfer a firearm while, at the same time, covering everyones asses. That being said, there are entirely too many problems with the current background check process. It's a broken system.

I am on the fence in regards to a national firearms registry. I recognize the importance of being able to trace a firearm that was used in a crime back to its owner. That being said, we are living in a post-Patriot Bill era and I do not like the idea of the government labeling me based upon what I own.

Banning high-capacity magazines seems like "security theater" that would only impose a completely arbitrary standard. What is the expected outcome of limiting a magazine to 10 rounds? How is a firearm that only holds 10 rounds somehow safer to the general public than one that holds 17 or 30? I do not support the idea of limiting the defensive capacity of all citizens based upon a handful of isolated incidents.

The same goes for banning "assault weapons". How does a flash suppressor or pistol grip stock make a firearm intrinsically more dangerous?

The notion of coding ammunition is absurd.

It just seems like rather than focusing on: How come loughner did not get the psychiatric help he probably needed?

We're focusing on guns as the problem....

When purchasing a regulated firearm (pistol, scary looking guns), Maryland has a system that authorizes the Maryland State Police to conduct a background check in to your mental health records (basically the State's ATF). Although I'm unsure of the efficacy of such system, I think it's a step in the right direction--so long as it didn't impose undue burden on individuals seeking to acquire firearms.

Will,

This debate has been waged for decades. The trouble that we 2nd amendment people have with engaging in it is that typically our opponents in the debate are disingenuous in their intentions. Most will say "we only want to reduce these high capacity magazines" or "we only want to make it harder for criminals to get guns." The truth for most people who are fighting those fights is that what they really want is to eliminate all private ownership of handguns and assault rifles. Is that what you would really like to see? If not, where is the line for you?

Criminals get guns from enterprising folk who don't care about law. The middleman will always be around. That's why the war on drugs never worked. Just drove up prices a bit. There will always be people out there ready to take the place of a black market dealer.

In other words, I don't think there should be much of a bother on gun control, just education.